User:Harry W1234/sandbox

Whataboutism
Wiki page: Whataboutism

Talk
One earlier use in 2007 noted, also from the same author, Edward Lucas of the The Economist: Some thoughts about this article:

1) Isn't the term "whataboutism" itself a propaganda term?

2) While you get thousands of hits when searching for "Soviet propaganda" on Google Scholar, you get only _four_ hits when searching for "whataboutism", all of them from 2012 or later. All the references did either lead to the Economist article from 2008, or to some article written after 2008, which did not give any references where it had the term from. The earliest mention that I found was this blog post from 2007: http://www.edwardlucas.com/blog/page/39/

If "whataboutism" is such a "famous" Soviet propaganda tactic, why isn't the term mentioned in the relevant literature (scholarly texts about propaganda)? If it is mentioned in the relevant literature, but I just didn't find it because I'm too bad at finding the references, would someone please provide citations from the relevant literature?

'3)' Why is this article filed under "hypocrisy"? This can be misunderstood that "whataboutism" is a form of hypocrisy, whereas it is actually accusing a person of hypocrisy in reaction to being accused by that person. The same goes for "the pot calling the kettle black". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larkusix (talk • contribs) 11:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Edward Lucas's blog post from 2007 was actually citing The Economist's article from 2007: http://www.economist.com/node/10049754 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.139.124 (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The two comments are interwoven on the Talk page.

Edward Lucas (The Economist), 31 Jan 2008
'Staff Writer' is Edward Lucas of The Economist.

Whataboutism Come again, Comrade? Jan 31st 2008 | Europe

SOVIET propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed “whataboutism”. Any criticism of the Soviet Union (Afghanistan, martial law in Poland, imprisonment of dissidents, censorship) was met with a “What about...” (apartheid South Africa, jailed trade-unionists, the Contras in Nicaragua, and so forth).

[...]

Whataboutism seemed to have died a natural death at the end of the cold war. But now it seems to be making a comeback. Your columnist took part in a live television conversation with some Russian colleagues last week, supposedly to discuss the bad image of Russia in the British press. It would be possible to make some quite reasonable points from the Russian side: is the media reaction to the Kremlin's treatment of the British Council selective or disproportionate? Are there angles to this story that nobody is exploring that might put Britain's stance in a different light?

Instead, the viewers were treated to a lively display of whataboutism. How could the West criticise Russia for sabre-rattling, asked the eloquent Aleksei Pushkov, when America and its allies had not just rattled sabres, but actually used them in Iraq. And so on and so forth.

It would help if Russia had a word for whataboutism. Literally, it could be kaknaschyotism. A crisp remark about lynching also raises a laugh and makes the point.

There's no source cited for Soviet propagandists being trained in the tactic or that their western interlocutors used the nickname “whataboutism”. There's no usage of the term prior to 2007, when Edward Lucas of The Economist recalled it as a term used in student debates at the London School of Economics.

The European Voice
"The writer is central and eastern Europe correspondent of The Economist.", i.e. Edward Lucas. The relevant paragraph is:

"“Whataboutism” was a favourite tactic of Soviet propagandists during the old Cold War. Any criticism of the Soviet Union's internal aggression or external repression was met with a “what about?” some crime of the West, from slavery to the Monroe doctrine. In the era when you could be shot for trying to leave the socialist paradise and with political prisoners rotting in Siberia, whataboutism was little more than a debating tactic. Most people inside the Soviet Union, particularly towards the end, knew that their system was based on lies and murder. For all its shortcomings, the West was not that bad."

Edward Lucas (The Economist), 29 Oct 2007
The correct link is http://www.edwardlucas.com/2007/10/29/diary-day-one/

The article cites 'whataboutism' as a term used in student politics "at the London School of Economics ... In 1980, when your diarist arrived there as an undergraduate", as a debating tactic used "by the Kremlin’s useful idiots ... to match every Soviet crime with a real or imagined western one. It was called whataboutism”.

It is then applied to a contemporary debate on the death of Russian press freedom, as a tactic employed by two Russian journalists, along with the assertion that Soviet propagandists’ overuse of “whataboutism” provided the punchline for subversive jokes, conflating it with the phrase “u nich linchuyut negrov” [over there they lynch Negroes] said to have become the derisive catchphrase for Soviet propaganda by the late 1980s.

The discredited debating tactic, a point of ridicule in Russia, is then said to attract vocal support from some in the audience taking part in the contemporary debate on press freedom in Russia, "a student from Pakistan ... Someone from Malaysia ... [and] A bearded Brit ..."

The Kremlin’s useful idiots Oct 29th 2007 From Economist.com

Our correspondent meets yet another bearded Brit

THE Old Theatre at the London School of Economics is a hotspot for demagoguery. ...

In 1980, when your diarist arrived there as an undergraduate, it was gripped by the issue of Soviet beastliness at home and abroad. At one end of the political spectrum were the ardent anti-communists, soon to be reinforced by refugees from martial law in Poland. They denounced the persecution of Soviet Jews, collected signatures for Czechoslovakia’s Charter 77, and celebrated the West’s renaissance under Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

At the other end were the Spartacists, a weird group of Stalinist Trotskyists (yes, you did read that correctly), whose slogans included “Workers’ bombs are bombs for peace! Capitalist bombs are bombs for war!” and “Smash NATO, defend the Soviet Union!”

A slightly less bonkers approach by the Kremlin’s useful idiots was to match every Soviet crime with a real or imagined western one. It was called “whataboutism”: “So you object to Soviet interventions in eastern Europe? Then what about the American assault on the Nicaraguan Sandinistas?” “You mind about Soviet Jews? Then what about blacks in South Africa?”

[...]

Soviet propagandists’ overuse of “whataboutism” provided the punchline for subversive jokes. For example: A caller to a phone-in on the (fictitious) Radio Armenia asks, “What is the average wage of an American manual worker?” A long pause ensues. (The answer would have been highly embarassing to the self-proclaimed workers’ paradise, which was proving to be lots of work and no paradise). Then the answer comes: “u nich linchuyut negrov” [over there they lynch Negroes]. By the late 1980s, that had become the derisive catchphrase that summed up the whole bombastic apparatus of the Soviet propaganda machine.

Yet “whataboutism” attracted vocal support from some parts of the audience. A student from Pakistan passionately denounced democracy as a sham. Someone from Malaysia praised the Kremlin for standing up to America. A bearded Brit came up with a predictable, “Who are we to judge?”.

Miriam Elder (The Guardian, April 26, 2012).
"Want a response from Putin's office? Russia's dry-cleaning is just the ticket".

"Those wishing to understand the link between handing in dry-cleaning and applying for a UK visa would do well to look up 'whataboutism'. The term emerged at the height of the Cold War, used to describe a favourite tactic of Soviet propagandists. An article in a US or UK paper calls out the Soviet government for locking up dissidents? Well then, a Soviet paper responds: 'What about the US campaign against the Black Panthers?' The practice is alive and well in modern Russia. Western papers upping their coverage of the protest movement against Putin's regime? Russia Today starts in with 'What about the Occupy movement?'"

This refers to The Economist article of in January 2008.

Konstantin von Eggert (RIA Novosti, July 25, 2012)
Due West: ‘Whataboutism’ Is Back – and Thriving OPINION 19:54 25.07.2012

Neil Buckley of the Financial Times, the newspaper’s former Moscow bureau chief and a friend of mine, has written a timely blog post about the resurrection of a forgotten Cold War term.

Whataboutism, once familiar to diplomats, politicians and Kremlinologists, dates back to the 1960s. It was used to ironically describe the Soviet Union's efforts at countering Western criticism. To those who lambasted their human rights record the Soviets would reply with something along the lines of “What about America, where they lynch blacks?!” or “What about your unemployment rate? Ordinary people in the U.S. (or the UK or Germany) are denied the basic right to work and pay!”

In the twilight years of the USSR, the Soviets clumsily if honestly called this exercise in public affairs “counter-propaganda.” These days, whataboutism is enjoying a comeback in Russia's official discourse.

[...]

Whataboutism plays quite well with certain segments of the Russian people. Relatively few Russians have visited the West, and a disproportionate number of those who have are residents of Moscow and Saint Petersburg. Russians in the provinces have only a hazy idea of what life is like in the West and abroad generally. They easily succumb to the government's argument that all talk of “values” is only cover for naked interests and political skullduggery. Moreover, whataboutism is mildly successful with parts of the Western audience, including the corporate one. Take the Kremlin's argument regarding fines and prison terms for those who break the law during public gatherings. It is true that some Western countries have similar laws. The difference between them and Russia is that in the EU or the U.S. the police and the courts are independent of the executive authority. They apprehend and try those who they think are guilty rather than those who are designated as culprits by the government. However, this reasoning frequently gets lost on those in Europe and America who have only a superficial knowledge of Russian realities or are prepared to look the other way – as foreign investors frequently are. The legacy of the Cold War, Neil Buckley from the FT rightly notes, lives on. Whataboutism will take quite some time to disappear.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s and may not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

''What is Russia's place in this world? Unashamed and unreconstructed Atlanticist, Konstantin von Eggert believes his country to be part and parcel of the "global West." And while this is a minority view in Russia, the author is prepared to fight from his corner.''

''Konstantin Eggert is a commentator and host for radio Kommersant FM, Russia's first 24-hour news station. In the 1990s he was Diplomatic Correspondent for “Izvestia” and later the BBC Russian Service Moscow Bureau Editor. Konstantin has also spent some time working as ExxonMobil Vice-President in Russia. He was made Honorary Member of the Order of the British Empire by Queen Elizabeth II.''

Joshua Keating (Slate, 21 Mar 2014)
Joshua Keating is a staff writer at Slate focusing on international affairs.

The Long History of Russian Whataboutism By Joshua Keating I like to imagine that British historian Orlando Figes is having a good time this month remembering all the people back in 2012 who questioned why he had decided to write a 600-page history of the Crimean War.

[...]

One particularly interesting aspect is that what we think of today as the “Cold War” mindset among some Western leaders predates the Soviet Union, and has its roots in British fears of Russian expansion during the 19th century. (Remember, Britain’s disastrous forays into Afghanistan were premised on the far-fetched notion that Russia could threaten British holdings in India.) The language of the Russia hawks in parliament in the run-up to Crimea wouldn’t have sounded all that out of place during the Cold War or today.

On the other side, Russian nationalists of Czar Nicholas I’s day, shared with their modern descendants a distinct belief that as their country’s influence grew, it was being cynically judged by different standards than western powers. (Western reporters have referred to this tendency as “whataboutism”—deflecting any criticism of Russia by saying “what about” a different abuse committed in the West.)

Daniel Drezner (The Washington Post, 20 Aug 2014)
"The events in Ferguson, Mo., have given rise to a new wave of “whataboutism,” a term coined by the Economist to describe Russia’s tendency to respond to criticisms of its policies with tu quoque replies of “what about Iraq?” or “what about race relations in America?”"

Other sources
Neil Buckley (blogs.ft, 11 Jun 2012), cited by Konstantin von Eggert (RIA Novosti, July 25, 2012), The return of whataboutism:

The return of whataboutism Neil Buckley | Jun 11 2012 14:59

"Soviet-watchers called it “whataboutism”. This was the Communist-era tactic of deflecting foreign criticism of, say, human rights abuses, by pointing, often disingenuously, at something allegedly similar in the critic’s own country: “Ah, but what about…?”

As several former Soviet republics drift back towards authoritarian ways, whataboutism is making a comeback. ...

Gerry Fitt, Hansard (Jun 1982, Jun 1998)
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/search/whataboutery 2 results

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 Mr Gerry Fitt Commons — June 30, 1982 "I refer here to what is known in Northern Ireland as 'what-about-ery'. That is what it is called when a Unionist stands up and lists a catalogue of murders of members of the Protestant community and I am supposed to say 'Ah, but what about …?' in an attempt to justify the other side in a macabre game of 'You are worse than us'. I am not in that game at all. At the present time, the IRA is responsible for the major part of the death and destruction taking place."

Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill Mr Gerry Fitt Lords — June 29, 1998 "As the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will know, we have in Northern Ireland what we have referred to over the years as 'whataboutery'. When one talks about the atrocities of the IRA, someone from the other side will say, 'Ah, but what about?' I have lived with that for 30 years in Northern Ireland. There is a lot of 'whataboutery'. If the IRA gives up its arms—and I want it to do so—I want the same criteria applied to the other paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland which have carried out the most atrocious murders seen in the island of Ireland in my lifetime and long before."

SluggerOToole, Feb 2005
Glossary: What is Whataboutery? « Slugger O'Toole

Glossary: What is Whataboutery? Mick Fealty on 9 February 2005, 8:05 pm 10 Comments | 403 views Familiar to anyone who’s followed public debate on Northern Ireland. Some define it as the often multiple blaming and finger pointing that goes on between communities in conflict.

Political differences are marked by powerful emotional (often tribal) reactions as opposed to creative conflict over policy and issues. It’s beginning to be known well beyond the bounds of Northern Ireland.

Nice illustrative piece from the archives by the late Jack Holland.Some years back the BBC quoted Cardinal Cahal Daly as having described Whataboutery as “the commonest form of moral evasion in Ireland today”, referring to how both communities use the terrible burden of past events to lay obstacles in the way of peace.

Jack Holland, Aug 2002
Irish Echo Online - News and Views

A View North: as expected, North debate slips into 'Whataboutery' July 31-August 6, 2002 By Jack Holland

...a kind of rhetorical device that characterizes a whole species of argument in Northern Ireland which has become known as "Whataboutery." Depressingly, at times it seems the only manner in which "debates" (though that is too fine a word to describe the exchanges) are conducted between nationalist/republicans and unionists/loyalists. These consist of one side making assertions which totally contradict the assertions of the other side, before the discussion slides into all-out "Whataboutery."

Everything2.com
Whataboutery - Everything2.com

..."whataboutery" is the practise of deflecting attention away from your own behaviour by bringing up an equivalent behaviour on the part of your political enemies. Opinion seems divided on whether the term was invented by John Hume or Cardinal Cahal Daly.

The earliest episode of whataboutery described as such in the annals of the BBC News Website concerns the justification of the loyalist bombing of a School in September 2001 with a claim that, "nobody is listening to the fact that their people are being attacked and intimidated by Ardoyne republicans".

BBC News Online, Sep 2001
Eyewitness: Bomb blast at school Wednesday, 5 September, 2001, 13:01 GMT 14:01 UK

Cardinal Cahal Daly once said: "Whataboutery is the commonest form of moral evasion in Ireland today", referring to how both communities use the terrible burden of past events to lay obstacles in the way of peace.

Today, another incomprehensible event was added to that long list of whataboutery - an event that 100 small children will never, ever forget.

Wiktionary
whataboutery - Wiktionary

Noun: whataboutery (plural whatabouteries) (informal, pejorative)

Protesting at hypocrisy; responding to criticism by accusing one's opponent of similar or worse faults. [quotations ▲] 1998 Gerry Fitt, House of Lords debates Vol.591 col.457 (29 June 1998): As the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will know, we have in Northern Ireland what we have referred to over the years as "whataboutery". When one talks about the atrocities of the IRA, someone from the other side will say, "Ah, but what about?" I have lived with that for 30 years in Northern Ireland. There is a lot of "whataboutery"

2011 Graham Spencer, Forgiving and Remembering in Northern Ireland: Approaches to Conflict Resolution (Continuum) ISBN 1441195475 p.101: The danger is that remembrance is used for self-righteousness, self-justification, point-scoring and what-about-ery. Protesting at inconsistency; refusing to act in one instance unless similar action is taken in other similar instances.